The liberals who comprise the MSM majority have in essence adopted the stance that insistence on religious tolerance in Muslim majority nations is an undue imposition of Western standards of human rights on foreign states and cultures, which is an expression of lingering imperialism, and thus bad, while millions of Muslims and non-Muslims suffer under the yoke of Islamist fundamentalism in all of its forms. One of the most egregious examples is the media’s treatment of the Muslim Brotherhood, but there are many more.

In consequence, the United States stands by as ethnic cleansing is accomplished versus Copts and other Christian minorities in Muslim majority nations.

Not two minutes ago on Morning Joe (I’m writing this at 8:37 a.m.) Mika mentioned the killing of two soldiers at the Frankfurt airport. They stressed “Germany” and the “last time there was a shooting in Germany” but they were unwilling to talk about what was brought up on MSNBC Europe’s own web page:

Family members in Kosovo described the suspect as a devout Muslim, who was born and raised in Germany and worked at the airport.

Our unwillingness to defend our cultural values is dooming millions to oppression. Consider this story from history:

General Charles Napier held the offices of Governor of Bombay and Commander-in-Chief of India for the British Empire,was confronted with the tradition of Sati (or Suttee) where the new widow of a deceased man would be thrown alive on his funeral pyre. Napier forbade it, and when leaders of the community objected saying it was their custom. Napier with all the confidence of an 1850’s Brit with this classic answer (via Mark Steyn’s book America Alone)

“You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours.”

Sati or Suttee has been gone from India for 160 years. How many widows did not die in excruciating pain because of this example of “cultural imperialism”?

And what is the situation now? Now we’ve reached the point that the same British who stopped Suttee in India now have unofficial “gay free zones” in their capital imposed by unassimilated Muslims who are imposing their own “cultural imperialism” right back at em.

I think Steyn nailed it with this sentence:

Multiculturalism was conceived by the Western elites not to celebrate all cultures but to deny their own.

Until we look this straight in the eye we will be seeing more headlines like this:

German prosecutors said on Thursday that Islamic radicalism may have motivated a Kosovar to open fire on an American military bus at the Frankfurt airport, killing two United States airmen and wounding two others.

Like this:

Ann Althouse who has done the best reporting on Madison period (BTW how does she have time to do all of this. Doesn’t she teach law somewhere?) brings us a blast from the past.

Ollie’s Barbecue is a family owned restaurant in Birmingham, Alabama, specializing in barbecued meats and homemade pies, with a seating capacity of 220 customers… The restaurant caters to a family and white-collar trade with a take-out service for Negroes….

What really amazed me concerning the Walker Restaurant story wasn’t so much the veracity of the story or the reaction of the restaurant. It was the unmitigated glee of democrats once again cheering the exclusion of people they don’t like from public accommodation.

Yes I said once again. Remember those Jim Crow laws were DEMOCRATIC laws supported by democratic legislatures and Democratic governors. Ann continues:

And who thinks about tomorrow? The state capitol is occupied right now and plastered with thousands of signs this week, and isn’t that just great? You haven’t give a moment’s thought — have you? — to what free speech rights will apply to the next group that wants to appropriate the state capitol? Are you planning on advocating viewpoint discrimination to keep the signs you find loathsome off the walls?

Back at Mindstain the person who broke this story regrets the notoriety that has come with speaking in the open square but most instructive is her critique of Gov Walker:

I feel that Governor Walker is crossing that threshold from despicable action to despicable person. Why do I say this? Because he refuses to listen. He refuses to back down, and therefore propagates the refusal to back down on the left. There’s no reasoning with a person who considers their own stance “THE ONLY” stance. To have someone like this in office is terrifying.

Take a close look at this. She equates refusing to back down with refusing to listen and because he doesn’t back down it forces the union not to back down.

Forget that there was an election, forget that republicans won both houses and the governorship, forget that the positions are all well-known and the governor knows the left’s position. He is despicable because he will not give in. He id despicable because he refuses to abandon those who elected him for a reason. What does that remind you of?

That’s most of the plan. The rest of the plan, as Israel explains, is making life difficult for some of the pro-life Republicans who were swept into Congress last year. The theory is that voters sort of elected them by accident. And they are numerous. At this year’s March for Life, an annual rally against legal abortion, 17 newly elected members of Congress spoke, stretching the speechifying part of the event about an hour longer than scheduled.

The new members include lots of people who took over suburban districts that had been trending more liberal. The Republicans who won, in most cases, didn’t run on abortion. They got pro-life support—the pro-life Susan B. Anthony List endorsed 14 Republican congressional candidates who took over Democratic seats. But Democrats remain convinced that the new class was never smoked out.

Take Rep. Ann Marie Buerkle, R-N.Y., one of the Democrats’ favorite examples. She started in politics as a spokeswoman for Operation Rescue in the 1980s. She didn’t hide this fact, but when she began running, she said she’d “be really careful not to make this a referendum on abortion.” Her opponent, incumbent Rep. Dan Maffei, tried to make abortion an issue. He lost. And when Buerkle got to Congress she immediately became a prominent pro-life advocate. Pro-choice activists can explain all of this, or try to.

Dave Dave Dave, if you read me and the lonely conservative you would know that it was likely the linkage of Buerkle to the pro-life movement that made the difference for her.

But a large portion of NY25′s voters are in Onondaga County. I did some digging and found out that there were 147,332 Catholics in Onondaga County alone in 2000 (Sorry, I searched for hours and couldn’t find any more recent data, or a breakdown of religious affiliation of registered voters.) I’m sure enough of those Catholics are registered voters who could swing the election in Buerkle’s favor. This race hasn’t been about social issues. It’s been about the economy, the direction of our country, and the failed policies of the current administration and Congress. By running this ad Dan Maffei just gave undecided pro-life voters a reason to vote for Ann Marie Buerkle.

See? Buerkle needed a miracle to win and, by highlighting her pro-life record in the final days of the campaign, her opponent gave her that miracle. Out of more than 200,000 votes cast in NY-25, Buerkle won by 657 votes, and how many of those votes were decided on the pro-life issue?

Additionally you might notice that the polls have steadily been trending toward life for years, advances in science and medicine has changed the viability equations additionally democrats haven’t grasped the idea that killing off your own voters for two generations tends to shrink your potential voting base. Additionally the growing Latin population is heavily Catholic and not the Nancy Pelosi flavor of Catholic either.

Like all great Evils abortion will eventually fall, in the end Americans are basically decent people. Dave is betting on the wrong horse.